In the 1939 case Standard Brands, Inc. v. National Grain Yeast Corp., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute involving yeast production technology. The plaintiff, Standard Brands, alleged that National Grain Yeast Corporation had infringed on their patented process for producing active dry yeast by using a similar method in their operations. However, the defendant argued that they were not infringing because they used an old and well-known technique of drying yeast which was not covered by Standard Brand's patent claim. The court ruled in favor of National Grain Yeast Corp., stating that there was no infringement as the method used by them to produce active dry yeast did not fall within the scope of what was claimed in Standard Brand's patent. They noted that while both methods involved drying out live yeast cells to preserve them for later use, there were significant differences between how this result is achieved in each process. This decision reinforced principles regarding interpretation and application of patents - specifically emphasizing careful consideration must be given to whether or not another party’s actions truly fall within claims made under a specific patent.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Standard Brands, Inc. v. National Grain Yeast Corp., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on a process for making yeast was incorrect because it violated principles of patent law. The dissent contended that the patented process did not meet the requirement of novelty and non-obviousness as it merely involved applying known techniques in a slightly different manner or order than previously done. Furthermore, they believed that granting such broad patents would stifle innovation by preventing others from using basic scientific methods and processes to develop new products or improvements. They also expressed concern about potential monopolistic control over an essential commodity like yeast, which could have significant economic implications.